/m/bill_james

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

#97: Well, it wasn't only JFK who walked on eggshells for a while when it came to McCarthy and McCarthyism. Dwight Eisenhower thought the election of 1952 would be closer than it turned out to be and much to his subsequent chagrin allowed those clowns to impugn the integrity of his mentor, George Marshall (something for which Truman never forgave Ike and which exacerbated the rift between them).

#98: Considering that Eisenhower chose as his running mate a Senator** who liked to talk about "[Dean] Acheson's College of Cowardly Communist Containment", his cowardice regarding McCarthy shouldn't have been too surprising. Eisenhower's presidency had plenty of good points, but political courage wasn't often among them.

That was the point of Mort Sahl's joke about the imaginary "McCarthy jacket": "It's a lot like the Eisenhower jacket, except it’s got one extra zipper that goes over the mouth.''

I realized just a few days ago that, unless I'm forgetting something really major, at 50 years the U.S. has now gone the longest it's ever gone without a president dying in office, whether from natural causes (starting with the first Harrison) or assassination. Weird.

And after Harrison, presidents went on a fairly regular basis (naturally or otherwise) until after McKinley, where it was about 45 years until another die, then JFK 18 years after that. True, no one has died or been killed since JFK, but many have been the subject of attempts. And Reagan could have easily been killed. That 50 years may be more luck than anything. Many Presidents were victims of attempted assassinations, but it seems that since WWII almost every president has undergone an attempt. I understand our current President has received many threats, and the secret service has been particularly vigilant since he was elected.

The US is on pace to tie its record for longest time w/out anyone dying in office on Oct. 27, 2015: That's 52 years and 339 days w/out a president dying in office. That's how long we went from Washington's 1st inauguration to Harrison's death.

I could be wrong about this, but I would assume that the Secret Service hasn't used an open-topped car for a presidential motorcade in an urban area in the last 50 years, has no intention of doing that in the future, and doesn't own any cars whose tops can be opened. Is there any major world leader now who is paraded around in an open-topped conveyance?

I could be wrong about this, but I would assume that the Secret Service hasn't used an open-topped car for a presidential motorcade in an urban area in the last 50 years, has no intention of doing that in the future, and doesn't own any cars whose tops can be opened. Is there any major world leader now who is paraded around in an open-topped conveyance?

Didn't either Clinton or Carter have an opened-topped motorcade for their inaugural? I think Clinton did and it was the first one since 1963.

If you want a really long-kept secret, historian Ian Mortimer argues that Edward II was not murdered in September 1327, as most historians think, but survived in protective custody until 1341 or so. He identifies a dozen or more people who knew of the survival. If he's right, that secret kept for 650-odd years. See here for more details.

it seems that since WWII almost every president has undergone an attempt.

Well, there was an attempt on Truman, then JFK was assassinated, then Byck tried hijacking a plane to kill Nixon, Ford had two attempts, Reagan was shot. OTOH, Ike, LBJ and Carter weren't targeted and since Reagan in 1981, in fact, no real attempts have been made.

I'm surprised nobody's taken a shot at Obama, to tell you the truth. Some ex-klansman or John Bircher or neo-nazi or some other right wing extremist who thinks violence is the first option for every circumstance.

As someone said it depends on what you call an attempt, Bush I (yeah he was no longer President by a few months, but the attempt was because he had been president), Bush II with grenade, Clinton, too, some tried seriously, if not too too realistically sometimes. Even Obama (ricin in the mail is no joke).

I'm surprised nobody's taken a shot at Obama, to tell you the truth. Some ex-klansman or John Bircher or neo-nazi or some other right wing extremist who thinks violence is the first option for every circumstance.

Me too, quite surprised. Based on the vitriolic language spewed around during his first campaign, I was ready to expect some nutball dillweed to take the shot. But no.

I do believe that a major amount of credit should probably be given to the Secret Service. They've learned a great deal from past failures (most prominently the JFK disaster, but also the Ford and Reagan attempts) and applied it well. It may be that the era of the wild-ass-crazy-idiot's opportunity for a shot is done. The serious and sophisticated assassin's opportunity obviously remains, as it always has and always will.

I too think the Secret Service deserves huge credit for the end--I hope--of serious assassination attempts. The last 3 presidents have been polarizing figures--these are polarizing times--and you would think they would have been targeted time and again. It only takes one nut, we assume, and nuts tend to hum off the anger in the air around them.

In The American Presidents' Series biography of Garfield, author Ira Rutkow, a physician, spends about half the book describing his shot and the medicine (or lack thereof) used to try to save him. He posited that Reagan's shot was far worse, so that if the eras were switched, Garfield would've been under observation overnight, and probably would have to take medication for awhile, but in all other respects wouldn't have missed a beat.

Garfield's assassination was truly a game changer. He was no Radical but was the most-radical candidate the Republican Party ever nominated for president (after Fremont, at least.) And there was real possibility for sustaining black rights in the South. He was very interested in a federal education bill that would have had a huge impact. And was open to continued intervention (though limited by the Posse Comitatus Act.) Could he have called for (and helped pass) some version of the Force Bill? Would he have appointed different Supreme Court justices? Would he have been able to hold onto the White House in 1884 and delay the Democratic takeover? Who knows? But in a two-party system, he was about the most-principled guy who could emerge (though he had his faults, too.) Had fought the House Dems furiously in 79 over their effort to defund the Army and force them to withdraw from the South. Worked with Radicals throughout Reconstruction though he stayed just one step on the moderate side from them.

There are no panaceas in politics, and lots of the if onlys are silly and counter-historical, but a surviving Garfield would have made a difference, I think.

Rawhide Down is a fantastic book on the subject of Reagan's assassination attempt.

re: lack of attempts since then, there are plenty of people who want to, beyond issuance of the innumerable threats each president receives, I think the USSS deserves a lot of credit. The amount of work they do in advance prep. for appearances is overwhelming.

I enjoyed Popular Crime, but occasionally James likes to ride a hobbyhorse down the middle of main street.

The thing I love about the Mortal Error theory, at least as James presents it, is the idea that you can fire an M16 in the middle of a parade down a crowded plaza in the middle of the day without anybody noticing. I mean, it's not the loudest weapon in the world, but it is a rifle, after all. I'm picturing 1000 shocked paradegoers staring at a Secret Service agent trying to sink into the ground... "Um, did you mean to do that?"

Continuing with the "rifle in a crowded plaza in the middle of the day" theme, I was surprised to learn just how definite and specific the people outside the Book Depository were that the gunshots had come from the building. They heard the shots, they heard the action on the rifle, they smelled gunpowder. Different people reported seeing the rifle in the window, and at least one person had a view into the window and reported seeing Oswald.

A lot of the "evidence" you hear about in the conspiracy stories is just people getting confused. I heard something from over here -- no, no, it was over there -- no, no, there was a guy with an umbrella...

Continuing with the "rifle in a crowded plaza in the middle of the day" theme, I was surprised to learn just how definite and specific the people outside the Book Depository were that the gunshots had come from the building. They heard the shots, they heard the action on the rifle, they smelled gunpowder. Different people reported seeing the rifle in the window, and at least one person had a view into the window and reported seeing Oswald.

People on the fifth floor even heard the shell casings hit the floor above them.

The one "conspiracy" book that is worth reading is Six Seconds in Dallas. That's interesting, because the author was one of the first people with access to the Zapruder film, and he tried very hard to look at all the evidence fairly. For example, he actually put together a map of people who claimed to hear a gunshot, etc.

What's really interesting about it, though, is to see how he talks himself into the grassy knoll theory. Basically, he squeezes the timing on the gunshots until he decides that Oswald couldn't have taken them all. And once you've got extra gunshots, you've got extra shooters.

The idea of working out the timing using the Zapruder film was a good one, but the idea that you can call an entire conspiracy into existence just by variations of timing amounting to one or two frames was just lunacy. If he would have been a little more rigorous and realized that nothing in the Zapruder film is *inconsistent* with Oswald acting as the lone shooter, then everything else he found would have led him directly to the answer.

I was surprised to learn just how definite and specific the people outside the Book Depository were that the gunshots had come from the building. They heard the shots, they heard the action on the rifle, they smelled gunpowder.

As alluded to in TFE, James¹ cites people smelling gunpowder at street level as one of the prime pieces of evidence in favor of the Menninger/Donahue Mortal Error theory.

I didn't realize that James discussed this on Bill Simmons' podcast, which means a whole bunch of people heard it (and I'm guessing prompted this article). Simmons asks James the good question of what percent certainty he would attribute to the Mortal Error theory. James responds that he would say 55% probability of the Mortal Error story, and 40% probability of the Warren Commission story.

I mean, damned if I know, but the one thing I do know is that I'd try to base my opinion as much on forensics as humanly possible. Trying to reconcile the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of people is utter madness... and that would be the case even if they had remained perfectly calm and alert as one of the great tragic historical moments of the century burst upon them with absolutely no advance warning... and even if it wasn't a guy firing from the sixth floor in a building half a football field away... and even if all the witnesses were immediately questioned... and etc. etc. etc.

One good point I thought was made on the podcasts (Simmons also did an earlier one with Chuck Klosterman) is that this happened at the perfect time in media history to feed conspiracy theories forever. If it had happened a couple of decades earlier, there most likely wouldn't be any footage, and if it had happened a couple of decades later, we'd have had 1,000 pieces of footage from 500 different angles. In 1963, what we had was enough to prompt questions, but not enough to provide answers.

¹ And yes, I know James is summarizing Menninger/Donahue's work, but since I am recounting reading/hearing James and have not read theirs, I'm phrasing it this way.

The one "conspiracy" book that is worth reading is Six Seconds in Dallas.

Which I read out of the library at something like age 10, weird kid that I was. (When one's mother doesn't have a basement, one has to make do.) I really need to revisit it as an adult (chronologically speaking), at least. I don't think I've read another conspiracy book since, other than a couple of round-ups of various theories.

Was thinking about that book just last night after watching Parkland via Netflix.

I did take a course (a survey, not a how-to) on presidential assassination my first semester as a grad student in U.S. history at Arizona State, back in the fall of '81. I think the prof was the only one who took the Warren Commission seriously.

Lots of great comments above. If we're revising presidential death based on modern medicine, you probably need to let FDR finish his last term. Not certain, of course, but a 21st century set of doctor's visits (edit: throughout his adulthood) may well keep him alive a little longer. Not sure about his fifth term, however. But it's hard to imagine a president dying, suddenly, of a natural causes at this point. They might well develop an incurable cancer but heart disease and stroke should be preventable. I assume they get frequent and thorough goings over.

And, yeah, poor Garfield. Good lord. I've read accounts that claim if they'd just let him be instead of trying to remove the bullet, he'd probably have survived. But they didn't know where the bullet was, so the ailing Garfield also inspired the first metal detector (on which Alexander Graham Bell worked/assisted). Bell and his colleague, Simon Newcomb, actually succeeded in building a detector which would have shown where the bullet was. But Garfield was lying on a bed with steel springs - also a brand new invention, of which Newcomb and Bell were unaware - and the steel springs interfered with the test. Bell and Newcomb were able to use their detector to find bullets in almost anything, or anyone, but the president.

So, even if we don't get civil rights in the south we do get metal detectors. So, there's that.

Also, though he didn't die, there is a great history of Cleveland's cancer that is worth a read. I think it's called something like, "The President is a Sick Man." A real life conspiracy that fits this conversation well.

Like many above, I'm stunned no one has gotten off a successful (edit: not "successful" in that they hit him or kill him but in that they don't get intercepted until they're close. That is, not a "threat" that is found out and shut down) shot at President Obama (I'm not rooting for such, just assumed it would happen.) For as many gun-nuts as he has who hate him and think he's an agent of Al-Qaeda or Communists, you'd think one of them would have the balls to take a shot. In fact, if someone actually believes that hokum about Obama, it should be their patriotic duty to give their life taking him out. Basically, I'm calling them a bunch of melodramatic cowards. But, I'm glad they are.

I think it's called something like, "The President is a Sick Man." A real life conspiracy that fits this conversation well.

Which Woodrow Wilson's post-stroke (or whatever the heck it was) years in the White House amounted to as well. Has anything of substance been written on the matter since When the Cheering Stopped (which I read probably last year)? I assume so, since that came out in 1964.

Is anyone familiar with John McAdams? He has what has been called by some (including, I think, Vincent Bugliosi) as the most comprehensive site on the JFK assassination on the internet. It's here: The Kennedy Assassination

I used to be all-in for JFK conspiracies when I was a teenager, and as late as when Stone's "JFK" came out to the theatres.

Then a friend of mine worked as an editor for a university newspaper and was given "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner as a review copy.
He read it and passed it on to me, and after finishing that book I completely flipped sides and I've been a "LHO did act alone." believer ever since.

I used to be all-in for JFK conspiracies when I was a teenager, and as late as when Stone's "JFK" came out to the theatres.

Then a friend of mine worked as an editor for a university newspaper and was given "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner as a review copy.
He read it and passed it on to me, and after finishing that book I completely flipped sides and I've been a "LHO did act alone." believer ever since.

Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History finished where Posner left off. It's hard not to imagine that there's a huge overlap between the Truthers, the Birthers and the JFK Conspiracy diehards.

Posner's book is really readable. He gives a rivetting profile of Oswald.

Check out McAdams. He's always succinct and to the point. He doesn't play rhetorical games. There was a recent article somewhere on him causing quite a stir when he showed up at some pro-conspiracy convention (he's done that before).

I'm surprised nobody's taken a shot at Obama, to tell you the truth. Some ex-klansman or John Bircher or neo-nazi or some other right wing extremist who thinks violence is the first option for every circumstance.

That's because the Dittohead Right is chock-a-block full of sackless puffed-up blowhards. They make all this bombastic talk about how Obama is Hitler or Mao or Stalin or whatever, how he hates America and coddles terrorists and worships Allah and wants to enslave white people and so on, but when you ask them to get down to brass tacks they're always otherwise occupied. So I guess that sort of answers the question about what kind of people would stand idly by why murderous tyrants consolidate power and oppress humanity, refusing to take any risks to protect their beloved countrymen. Teabaggers.

Of course the other obvious possibility is that they don't believe any of their hyperbolic hysterics and they're just taking turns suckering their legions of rubes.

Doonesbury had a week-long set of strips dedicated to the JFK conspiracy craziness that came out during a previous anniversary of the date (25th? 20th?).
It went after all the craziness, and I believe the Sunday coloured strip had a diagram that showed all the different shooters and locations that the conspiracies believed existed.
It was a 360 degree shooting gallery that would have killed almost everyone in Dealy Plaza if it was true.
Unfortunately, the strip is buried behind the Slate web interface and there isn't a good way to search/find it.

On the lack of successful assassinations in the last fifty years, the crazy-tight security bubble that presidents now exist in must be mentioned. An advance team scouts anywhere a president goes days ahead of time. They set up security perimeters and metal detectors.

Of course the other obvious possibility is that they don't believe any of their hyperbolic hysterics and they're just taking turns suckering their legions of rubes.

More likely that the whole violent right wingers theme is just a myth perpetuated by those who disagree with them. Jack Kennedy was killed by a Communist loser; Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian terrorist.

YC, I'm not talking about people who accuse right wingers or gun owners of being violent. I agree that, in general, it isn't any more true than it is for those on the left.

I'm talking about guys who own lots of guns, are reasonably good shots AND who claim to believe that Obama is an enemy agent (as opposed to just being a bad president). If you actually believe the president is an enemy agent and you do nothing about it, you're a coward.

So, I'm not talking about everyone who doesn't like, or agree with, President Obama. But that still leaves a LOT of people. While on the other side, the folks who had similar looney views of Bush were, generally, very anti-gun, anti-violence.

I'm just saying you can't rationally claim to think Obama is an enemy agent AND own a bunch of guns AND sit on your hands without being a coward. If you just think he's a bad president, sure, no problem.

BTW if you scroll up the page and click on "DISNEY", you'll see one of the best examples of why our current copyright laws are a complete disaster.

Can you explain? I mean, I see what the image is, but I guess I'm missing the copyright angle.

My bad on that one. I'd wrongly remembered that Disney had sued The Realist for copyright violation, but in fact they didn't. I still think our copyright laws give way too much protection to works that should have gone into the public domain many years ago, but that has nothing to do with the Wally Wood cartoon that was published in 1967.

My bad on that one. I'd wrongly remembered that Disney had sued The Realist for copyright violation, but in fact they didn't. I still think our copyright laws give way too much protection to works that should have gone into the public domain many years ago, but that has nothing to do with the Wally Wood cartoon that was published in 1967.

Fair enough, and in principle I agree with you, although I confess I haven't read enough/thought enough about the issue to consider myself well informed.

He's a terrorist because he's Arab, right? Interesting choice of words there, considering Oswald had tried to kill a general (admittedly a semi-fascist one), and killed a cop on the same day he shot Kennedy. Sirhan was arguably even more of a loser than Oswald, if that was possible.

Extremists in Dallas created volatile atmosphere before JFK’s 1963 visit

The recent book on this very topic, Dallas 1963, is quite good.

-- thanks to which I plucked the volume off the nearest library branch's new book shelves on the way home from work a couple of nights ago. Read the first third last night. My god, I'm from Arkansas & have lived in such fascist enclaves as the Phoenix & New Orleans areas & now central Alabama; early '60s Dallas makes me feel like I've spent my entire life in the Paris Commune.